No shit. With the problem so many have in this country with student debt, I am sick and tired of hearing about the plight of these players. They are receiving substantially more in the form of tuition, room and board (if they live in the dorms), food, and tutoring than they would if they tried to get a job out of high school (they made a choice to go to college and play football rather than getting a job and making money, just as every other college student does. Admittedly, regular college student can get a part time job, but that generally is to pay for stuff that players either get from the university or can pay for through Pell Grants). Not to mention the massive improvement in earning potential they will get by graduating from college. The NCAA is annoying with many of its rules, but it is also ridiculous to claim that these kids don't have a pretty sweet deal as is. The day college football turns into a semi-pro league where schools get into bidding wars for players will be a sad one indeed, and when/if that day comes, then any reference to The Team speech should be removed from anything dealing with our beloved football program, as it will no longer have any relation to college football. (If you don't know why, then listen to the speech again).

Most students aren't risking severe injuries for their colleagues' entertainment. Nor are most students generating millions of dollars for the school and seeing none of it for themselves beyond the lack of debt.

Most student athletes aren't doing what you're saying either. Are you suggesting changing the entire system to address the 10 (maybe) athletes out of hundreds at each school that are worth more than what they receive in scholarships, etc?

The number of athletes who are actually worth the millions, and who are always held up as shining examples of the evil oppression of the NCAA, compared to the number who don't even bring back the worth of their scholarship, is utterly miniscule.

Just because there are more John Smiths than Johnny Manizel's makes it okay?

That's a very poor argument.

Why should anyone in this country be held back because others don't have what they have?

I'm not saying I'm for or against players receiving compensation. Personally I think it's a stupid discussion because not one person on this thread truly umderstands how athletics works. But if there was a "right" answer... we'd have it by now. The fact is, it's the structure of CFB...and when that changes, then you'll see this topic progress. But as long as Michigan/ND/OSU/Texas etc. are in the same structure as UTSA/ULM/EMU... we'll be arguing on message boards.

The problem with your assertion is that the people who will be hurt the most if teams begin paying football players more are the ones who contribute nothing. There are lots of sensible ideas, but the ideas that are actually most likely to be put in place are ones that will hurt people like swimmers, wrestlers, gymnasts, soccer players, tennis players.....etc.

"Pay them what they're worth" is a much worse argument than what you claim mine is, because it only ever looks at the tiny, select few who get less than they're "worth" and ignore the vast majority who get far, far more than they're "worth."

Players organized for months, utilizing social media and conference calls amongst themselves, and got a grand total of a small handful of guys from, what, about three schools to do this.

How many of their coaches knew what these guys were doing when they wrote APU on their wristbands? Now knowing what it means, how many of those coaches will still let them do it next week?

I guess I'm skeptical that this lasts beyond this week in any meaningful way. At the end of the day, the NCAA is an established (though flawed) body with a lot of money and clout, and these players are kids who signed on the dotted line for a free education from top universities, fulling knowing the score of what they were getting into. They know the risks of playing football, and I bet every single one of them were playing EA Sports games with someone else's likeness for years before they set foot on campus.

I'm not saying I disagree with all of their sentiments, but playing devil's advocate for a minute, what exactly will this accomplish in the long run?

I would not belitte their organizing efforts. Organizing takes a long time and starts with a small group determined to make a difference. I read an article recently (trying to find the URL) where there was mention of a plan by a NCAA tournament basketball team to come out in a Final Four or Championship game and just sit instead of playing.

No one can make them play at that point. Obviously the school did not make and the plan never went through.

We are going to see a sea change soon in college sports... not necessarily semi-pro, but a system that takes advantage of students so blatantly will not be allowed to stand for much longer. Watch this group... folks in charge of the NCAA are also says "what will the accomplish? pshhhh nothing"... until the day that the students use the power they have to make the system change - their talent.

I don't think this in itself will accomplish anything. You can't deny though that this 'pay the players' movement is gaining momentum. I could be wrong but it feels like just a matter of time at this point.

Perhaps it is splitting hairs but while I would have a problem giving players a paycheck, I would have no problem at all giving ALL OF THEM 20 hr / week (or what ever the NCAA says is the limit for required practice hours per week) work study at the going rate for work study jobs on campus.

I don't think it's that radical of an idea. A student that works in the library does a service for the school and can get work-study for it. A football player does service for the school...

I SMH at anyone who thinks what they write is not an opinion, but outright fact.

IMO.........Like most people, athletes need to go to college to get a job, NFL or otherwise, but it's still a choice. They can choose to sit out, not play for 3 years after high school, and enter the draft. Most of these kids are using college athletics just as much as the schools are using them.

Personally, I think these requests are a smoke screen for what they really want...money. If the players came out and said they want to be paid to play, not much would come from it, but, by including demands that most people see as very reasonable, they can further the real fight, which is for cash payouts to players.

Exaaaactly. If you don't like it then why did you sign the contract. Without their scholarships a ton of these guys would never have gotten in to college, at least not a quality one. So really they're not just getting paid the cost of their education, they're getting a chance to make a very good salary for the rest of their lives. The degree to which education is undervalued in this national conversation makes me sick.

Working in Title Insurance it's apparent how many people think contracts are not binding and it's someone else's fault if things don't go their way.

No one made you play college football. I would give my left nut to go back a decade and be the starting quarterback at Michigan for one game (a win) and be happy to have that story for the rest of my life

I agree nobody is forcing anyone to play college football. Also as a graduate student I had to sign a contract that basically said if anything I create makes a profit (patents etc) it goes to the University. Further, as someone has mentioned research brings in a ton of cash and as a grad student I realize I am just cheap labor. However, I wouldn't trade it for anything because I love science.

No it wouldn't. The value of a college degree for some of those kids who aren't college superstars and still want a chance at the NFL still outweighs the opportunities they would have if they would be allowed to profit from their fame.

There's already a caste system. It's not like Temple is pulling in 4 stars or some shit.

Their demands don't seem too crazy. I just believe that compensating athletes from schools will make it very unfair for all the lower D1 schools not generating as much income as the larger schools. Also, major protesting like this won't lead to change until players start sitting out games and refusing to play

Oh this is nothing compared to what it would be like if our players were turned into "pro" athletes and officially getting paid for their efforts.

I think there could be a lot of unintended consequences if college football becomes a minor league for the pros. I'm not sure interest will remain as high. It is interesting that as the experience becomes more like the NFL fan passion and participation has been going down. I'm not sure if this is just correlation or causation but based on what people have bee saying on this blog both trends exist.

I hope all parties in this issue tread carefully and think about all the potential consequences of any actions taken.

I just saw a Sportscenter segment on the best 3 college performers from this week and something directing you to go to a sponsered website to vote. I think this is where my cognitive dissonance...it's a multi-billion dollar industry and their faces are plastered all over the media. Who gets hurt if Manziel sips on Gatorade and pretends to work out, who really gets hurt?

I guess my argument is that people seem to want to have these pie in the sky notions about amatuerism and whatever....that's fine , take the money out of the sport. Get them off TV, get them off video games, T-Shirts and gear should be made and printed by the university and sold for cost or profits should be sent back to the university.

You can't have it both ways. If you wanna have money in the game, you can't really complain when players complain about their lack of a cut. When there isn't money in the game, then I think your argument is more valid.

...your argument, I just find it indefensible that student-athletes complain about not getting money when their fellow students and their families sacrifice mightily to get educated by the very same institutions they attend.

If I am a student athlete electing to major in a more lucrative engineering or pre-med curriculum vis-a-vis the easier and less lucrative "kinesiology" major, that's my decision and I reap the rewards (or the lack thereof) from it.

Taking advantage of educational opportunities is the responsibility of each student and student-athlete. No one is holding a gun to these kids' heads forcing them to play and, more importantly, learn.

What do you provide to the university other than a tuition check? You think athletes don't mightly sacrifice? Between classroom obligations and athletic obligations, they work 100Xs more than you. When you bring in the money and clout that some of these athletes bring to Michigan, this argument might have a leg to stand on -- as of now it doesn't. No one prevented you from making money off your talents while you were in school.

No one put a gun to your head and forced you to attend Michigan, much less any college. You chose to attend, deal with it -- your entitlement attitude of expecting people to pat you on the back or compare you to athletes is sickening.

And the engineering argument is BS. Most of these guys are barely qualified to get into the Kines school without football, much less the engineering school.

And nobody put a gun to the head of the players and forced them to attend, either. They also made that choice. And if they couldn't have ever sniffed college without their football skills, shouldn't they be really fucking grateful for the opportunity? To get something that people have to pay a lot of money for, and all they have to do is play football? This of course assumes I agree with the notion about the stupidity of football players, which I don't. If they worked as hard in the classroom, in high school and in college, as they do on the football field, most could get into college somewhere.

(Assuming we're talking about football players, here, of course. We seem to be. Although you only mentioned it once. How about other athletes, who provide zilch to the school and still get the same huge scholarships? Is that unfair exploitation also?)

You're right, nobody forced them to play. Okay, now, consider this: you have the opportunity to be the first person in your family to go to college because you're an extremely talented football player. What do you do: decline a scholarship to college because it's to play football?

The fact is, I don't know that we can fairly say "IT'S A TRAP" for players really wanting cash payments. Based on the content of this board, we've all been disgusted by the greyshirting and scholarship pulling that goes on at many major schools to clear out injured players or those that aren't up to snuff.

We pride ourselves on taking well-rounded young men for the football program; not just football skills matter, but grades and attitude (unless all of that fawning over academics has been total horseshit). How do you think it feels to be literally discarded off to the side due to injury? Turns out that all that mattered was their football talents, not any of the other character shit to which we had paid so much lipservice. Wouldn't YOU be upset that after sacrificing your body and best lifetime earning opportunity for the school, you were tossed aside and had your education pulled? Wouldn't you be bitter if you had a lifetime of knee/head/ankle/elbow/wrist pain because you gave it all to the school and they tossed you for an injury? Wouldn't you be bitter if a university with a major hospital system made you pay for the treatment that resulted from playing for that school?

I'm not saying that Michigan is necessarily guilty of these things. What I'm saying is a lot of these other schools likely are.

The kids that make the committment to play are 16-18; they see glitz and CFB glamor all over TV every week. Then they get to school and can nominally afford to go out to the movies while coaches make millions.

Whether or not YOU think it's objectively fair, you need to look at the totality of the circumstances in the PLAYERS' positions. Yeah, we're all SO morally superior because rabble rabble damn kids can't appreciate what they have. You try what they're doing in their environment, knuckling under OUR expectations. Then come back to me and say none of their complaints are valid.

Wait a minute. Nobody has their education pulled because of injury. When they get hurt, the school pays for their care, and if their career is over, they still get their scholarship. That's what medical scholarships are. The outrage is because their football career is unwillingly over, not their education, and because it allows unscrupulous coaches like Saban to twist the rules to his advantage.

Your assertions that schools force their players to pay for their own medical care and cut their education short is flatly untrue, and the moral outrage over it is misplaced.

I know what a medical scholarship is. I also know that, on this board, we have specifically cited instances of players being forced to transfer due to injury or not being good enough anymore.

Let's suppose, however, that you're entirely right. This still doesn't mean that players aren't forced out of a program/off scholarship to make room for other, better players. If a player hasn't done anything wrong (besides "not be good enough), and loses a scholarship because they aren't "good enough," then I think there's enough moral outrage there go around. Promise an 18 year old a scholarship to play sports, they play hard, then they still lose it.

Also, the reasonable inference from requesting medical expenses due to injury is that all of these expenses accrued after college would not be covered. Yes, as a matter of law, you're limited to a single recovery. As a matter of morality, I think that injuries incurred in service to the school/team merit the school footing the bill thereafter. These aren't NFL players that blew their savings and can't pay for care.

...you make it sound like slave labor. These kids WANT to play the sports they love and are tremendously privileged to do it on a prominent stage for universities that offer a future to them.

And I find it offensive that you believe that these kids should be treated preferentially. They are so blessed to have the skills they have. Add to that the opportunity to play for a prestigious institution of higher learning at no cost and they've won a lottery that 95% of their fellow students envy.

I could be wrong, but I believe Denard Robinson valued his education. I believe that's a big reason he chose Michigan. His NFL career notwithstanding, I think if you asked him whether his play in exchange for his education was a fair trade, he would answer a resounding "yes."

Where did I say they should be treated preferentially? The fact is they already are and have been for decades. You don't think they get preferential treatment gaining admission to a university that a fair majority of them would not have gotten into based on their academic performances? I'm specifically referring to football/basketball -- this tends to be less of an issue in non-revenue generating sports. If you're really that outraged at their entitlement for having the audacity to ask to not be restricted in what they may do with their likeness (how preferential), then you should be livid at football players getting into Michigan with lower GPAs and standardized test scores than you sacrificed to achieve. If I were you, I'd boycott college sports all together!

If the players want to be compensated for their participation in college athletics, I say eliminate athletic scholarships for those athletes. Lets see how many players can afford to play when they have to pay their own way through college on what some booster is offering them.

Not a terrible idea. I bet if you took a vote among all college athletes - who work just as hard as football players - about whether they'd rather be compensated with scholarships and the perks they receive, or whether they'd rather get nothing from the school but be able to market their likenesses and autographs and such on the free market, I have no doubt the scholarship would win overwhelmingly. Absolute landslide.

But why does it have to be a zero-sum game. Who gets hurt by allowing players to market their likeness? It already happens -- they just don't get compensated for it. As to your previous point, for most athletes, yes, because they actually take more out of the school than they provide. No one is really going to pay anyone on the Women's Water Polo team for a TV spot. I'm not in favor of the school's making direct payments to player -- I don't beleive that's a feasible option. Most school simply can't afford it.

And I'm sure if you asked most non-revenue athletes something along the lines of "Hey guys, aren't you just so glad that you're getting a free education off the backs of the football program? Oh and btw do you guys really mind if Manziel does a commercial or something for whoever and gets paid for it"? Most would not care. Sure the opportunity to go out and market would be available to everyone and if market forces dictate that there is a market out there for the captain of the Women's Water Polo team to make a few bucks, then fine -- that's all I'm saying, is let the market decide.

...I think if we extrapolate a trend line forward (and not that far forward, by the way), you'll have agents and ad agencies knocking on the dorm room doors of these kids providing a tremendous distraction and creating chaos. It just gets uglier as time progresses, no matter how you slice it.

The problem with turning it into a free-for-all, though, is that the $10,000 jockstrap quickly becomes an issue. And that's not really the market. That's just a rich Texas or USC or Alabama booster buying the best players for his team. I know as Michigan fans we're supposed to pull for a system that prevents the Indiana States from dragging us down with voting volume, but the market free-for-all doesn't make winners out of the best programs. It makes winners out of the schools with the richest boosters. That's a problem.

I would not be opposed to a little bit more of a structured way in which players could market themselves. Example: Let them sell things if they want to sell them. If they don't want their rings, fine. If they want to sell autographs, fine. Set up an NCAA clearinghouse to sell them through. Give the player like 10 or 20% right now and put the rest in trust to be collected when he leaves school. If someone wants Johnny Football for a local ad spot, have the schools hire agents (on commission, so they actually work out a good deal) to negotiate that and do the same with the money. Would it eliminate under-the-table payments? Of course not. But then at least the players would have some outlet, and if someone finds himself unmarketable, boo-hoo. And at least it wouldn't legitimize a waterfall of cash to Joe High School Kid for no other reason than to buy him up for Alabama. That is not a desirable college football world.

This is something I'm fine with. I'm not in favor of the boosters paying 10K for a good play or something. I just think if a guy wants to do a commercial or sell his autographs, he should be allowed to.

Yes. It's not either "wild west" or "complete amateurism." Laugh as we might at the idea of regulating these sponsorships, there's no reason to think you couldn't. How? Make the school liable too.

Student athletes that are willing to market their image can submit their names to the school. Agents can then submit a bona fide sponsorship offer to the AD for X number of players. If the player is interested, the agent, AD, and player can sit down. They can make a deal for a certain promotion within reasonable parameters (compensation in relation to a scale--why not allow it to go up for each year the player is there? It incentivizes staying in school for the best players, minimizes attrition, increases graduation rates.)

Let's pretend the scale says that for each year the student is in school, they're capped at: 25% value of the scholarship, 50% scholarship, 75% scholarship, 90% scholarship cap thereafter. Yeah, there could be schools that have a slightly higher cap. It wouldn't be a significant amount, though.

Let's also say the school is the clearinghouse for the funds. The school will be a fiduciary of the students, whether or not the student actually has a deal. Nothing like the term "fiduciary duty" makes a large, compliance-sensitive organization pause before engaging in funny business. Here's another good idea: allow the universities to collect fees directly from the promoters (bids on offers, other contract fees). Those fees can be put in a trust for injured players.

Fairness? Okay. To balance it out so it doesn't turn into just a few players are getting paid, how about: we allow an agent/organization to pitch an entire team for promotions. Even if the individual players that are getting paid are on that team, their earnings will still be capped based on the scale. This will also provide some incentive not to sign 1 year max-deal.

For the record, I just thought that up. As I typed it. Stream of consciousness. If a lazy third year law student can cook that up from his couch, I am supremely confident the NCAA can work out a reasonable compromise. Also, if anyone has Emmert's number, go ahead and ring him. Pretty sure I just solved his problems. I'd like to be paid.

I don't understand why you make this out to be a zero sum game. It's not all or nothing -- some players produce more value than the schools are able or willing to provide them. To get compensated to what they think their true value is, they can go out to the market. Why should they have to reimburse the school? The school still gets Johnny Manziel or Reggie Bush on the field. I understand people "watch Michigan to watch Michigan, not to watch Denard" but you're simply just replacing another good player with the idea that he will be replaced by another good player. Let's say Michigan is full of bad players -- for a long time. Would attendance and interest not drop and not create new younger fans?

It's not necessarily zero-sum. Beleive me, I see both sides of the issue.

My point was only that if the endorsements made by a particular player exceed the value of what they've been given as a scholarship, and they compensate the school for that, then it takes away some of the opposition's argument. You can't as easily say "But they are being paid/compensated with a free education, so you shouldn't pay them"

You know who gets hurt by marketing a player's likeness? The player. The college student who is supposed to be spending his time doing things like concentrating on school, football, and being a teenager is now swamped with opportunities to film commercials, sign autographs, make appearances, etc.

There is a reason for the supposed "Heisman jinx" where the winner tends to do poorly in his bowl game. They spend more time in December doing promotional stuff than practicing.

Can you imagine the clusterfuck Johnny Manziel would be if the NCAA allowed him to do commercials and promotional events? Nike or Gatorade would have to fly him back to A&M on saturdays just to play the game.

I think the reason a lot of people like college sports is that the athletes are playing for their team and to represent their school. As soon as they start getting paid, it becomes just another minor league sport where they are playing for a contract. I don't really take a lot of interest in minor league sports.

when the athlete needs something (food, rent, a new computer for class, basic needs), they go to the school compliance dept, submit a request and it is reviewed and the money is disbursed and then the player returns with receipts and the compliance dept tracks it.

While the player is in school, they should be paid like work study. They need the basics like we all did. Food, water, shelter, transportation, etc...If the player graduates, they receive their annuity or investment money the school has paid for each year.

I don't know what the answer is but this discussion will only get worse as this drags on.

They already get paid via scholarship. Assume cost of scholly is 50k per year (likely a very low estimate). Assume they "work" 2000 hours per school year. That's $25 an hour...not bad. And they get year 5 of the scholly, where if they finish eligibility in 4 years, they have to do 0 work. My wife played women's soccer in the early 90s and had more than enough extra money from her housing allocation to buy a pizza, etc and yes, that's from women's soccer...the football players and basketball players got more of an allocation for housing so they should have had plenty of extra cash assuming they chose economical living arrangements ie don't live in swanky off campus condo with one other dude, but grab 5 or 6 dudes and live in a house.

I don't understand the anger at the players who were protesting. It appears they are asking for some reasonable accommodation related to protection from injury and a little extra money to cover the full cost of attendance. They may or may not get some of this in the long run. What I don't understand is the anger at them asking for more with some saying they should be happy with what they have.

You can't get anywhere in life if you don't ask. When you apply for a job, go for a promotion or ask for a raise you are asking for something. You will never sell anything if you don't ask for the sale. It seems like people are see the act of asking as the same thing as begging. The players are not begging. They are pointing out the value they are providing and asking for more in return. How is that different then you asking for a raise or a salesman selling you a car?

This does not mean they will get what they are asking for. That is between the player, their school and the NCAA. Arguing about how players are compensated and the rules for student athletes is a legitimate exercise. Condemning players for asking for more and declaring them ungrateful is disingenuous at best.

I'm all for the schools being able to provide a monthly (or weekly would probably be better) stipend to the players across all sports to compensate them for the money they bring in. I don't think you can allow outside money to be a part of the equation however, that's opening Pandora's Box.

For it to happen, the big schools are going to have to break away from the small schools and be their own division/association. The NCAA is currently too big to be useful.